Somebody please explain it like I'm five:
WTF is the point of this rocket-booster-catching with chopsticks, if the tech already exists to simply land them on a flat surface?
#starship
@szakib
First guess:
A landing empty can of coke wouldn't take serious damage, whereas a landing empty oil barrel definitely would.
Catchinhg forces where you catch your child is therefore a good idea.
Apart from that, also just guessing, it's much more tolerant to remaining horizontal forces in the critical moment.
@szakib they aim for quick reusability withing 24 hours. So they don't want to use cranes, transport vehicles etc but just have the rocket already in place again when it lands.

@mika83ac @szakib yes, there are 2 or 3 main advantages:

- return to launch site. For boosters of large diameter and length, transporting empty stage using barges and cranes is complicated, while long distance road or railway transport may be completely impossible.

- weight of legs/struts: you don't have to accelerate and decelerate dead weight of landing legs.

- structural integrity of empty unpressurized cylinder: it may be actually easier to hang it, rather then reinforce it to stand on its base (?) (not sure about this). But even if the cylinder is rigid enough, it self-stabilizes itself when hanging, like pendulum (quite sure about this).

@xChaos @mika83ac Thanks, this makes sense. I keep thinking about the cost of mishaps, though. If there is a RUD, the launch pad / tower is also lost and probably takes rather long to rebuild.

@mika83ac @szakib

Well the chopstick tower is the crane, broadly speaking.

It's not much about reusability but more about the financial fitness. It seems nowadays it's cheaper to have a high blowup probability vehicle launching and landing from/on a high blowup probability launch/landing pad than having a proven non-reusable rocket launched from a proven launch pad.